Subject: RE: 'externalFiles' to 'externalFragments'?
Thanks. I updated #182 to propose application/sarif-fragment+json. I’ll check the MIME type RFC to make sure “hyphen” is ok.
I like your proposal! We need to make sure we request all relevant MIME types as well, I think we require one additional one minimally for SARIF fragments.
I captured a proposal based on this discussion in an issue comment; please review – thanks!
By the way, Michael and I were having this discussion in the context of working to close the existing Issue #118, “SARIF file naming convention”. We are not proposing to open a new issue. It we did decide (for example) to rename externalFiles to externalFragments, we would do it in the context of #118.
Hey! Why not name it (“it” being the thing we today call a “externalFile”) sarifFragment rather than externalFragment? That is parallel to the existing sarifLog type! And it would then map most naturally to the filename extension “sarif-fragment”.
“sarif-fragment” is nice because it suggests “sarif-resources” as the extension for the language-specific resource files defined elsewhere in the spec. If “-sarif” is at the end of the extension, you end up with “resources-sarif” which doesn’t read as well.
Larry and I were discussing a possible rename yesterday, just sanity checking this with the group. We were specifically noting that we require a naming convention to help distinguish ‘external’ files. The reason is that their only distinguishing characteristic within the file is the $scheme property, which is optional (the version property matches a root/parent SARIF file).
And so a convention to name these files something like *.external.sarif would be useful. Alternately, of course, we could consider defining an entirely new extension, e.g., external-sarif.
When considering either a new extension or a file naming convention, it occurred to me that the use of the term ‘fragment’ would be clearer. And so I have two questions: